This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-apology-iran-comments-teach-journalism-prison-sentence-a8052611.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Boris Johnson apologise for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe comments 12 days after inaccurate remarks Boris Johnson apologise for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe comments 12 days after inaccurate remarks
(35 minutes later)
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has apologised for incorrect comments, which are feared to have lengthened the prison sentence of a British woman incarcerated in Iran.  Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has apologised for incorrect comments, which are feared to have risked lengthening the prison sentence of a British woman incarcerated in Iran. 
Mr Johnson has faced pressure over mistaken remarks made to MPs, where he claimed Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe had been "teaching journalism" in Tehran when she was arrested 19 months ago - rather than visiting relatives as her family claims. Mr Johnson has faced calls to resign over mistaken remarks made to MPs, where he claimed Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe had been "teaching journalism" in Tehran when she was arrested 19 months ago - rather than visiting relatives as her family claims.
He said the British Government had “no doubt” that Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe was on holiday after Michael Gove gave an interview on Sunday claiming he "did not know" why she was there. Iranian state TV seized on his comments as an "unintended confession", prompting fears that his comments were being used by the Iranian authorities to justify her continued imprisonment.
Speaking during an urgent question in the Commons, Mr Johnson said: “As I said in the House last week, my remarks on the subject before the Foreign Affairs Committee could and should have been clearer. Mr Johnson, who returned from Brussels to answer an urgent question in the Commons said the British Government had “no doubt” that Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe was on holiday after Environment Secretary Michael Gove gave an interview on Sunday claiming he "did not know" why she was there.
“And I acknowledge that the words that I used were open to being misinterpreted and I apologise to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family if I have inadvertently caused them any further anguish. He said: “As I said in the House last week, my remarks on the subject before the Foreign Affairs Committee could and should have been clearer.
More follows… “And I acknowledge that the words that I used were open to being misinterpreted and I apologise to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family if I have inadvertently caused them any further anguish."
  Shadow Foreign secretary Emily Thornberry condemned Mr Johnson for days of "obfuscation and bluster" where he failed to clarify his comments, as she urged him to state "simply and unequivocally" that he got it wrong.
Mr Johnson went on to apologise for the "distress and suffering" caused by his remarks, adding: "I do apologise, I do apologise and of course I retract any suggestion that she was there in a professional capacity."
It comes as Downing Street said it was considering offering diplomatic protection to the mother-of-one, which would make the case a legal dispute between Iran and the UK, rather than a consular issue.
But her husband Richard Ratcliffe claimed he had submitted a legal opinion that she was entitled to diplomatic protection to the Foreign Office more than two months ago but received no reply.
In an open letter published in the London Evening Standard, Mr Ratcliffe urged him to “solve this mess” created by Mr Johnson’s incorrect claims that Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe was training journalists in Iran.
He said: “Nazanin is being held because she is British and is being used as a bargaining chip against the UK, now justified by your words.
“That direct connection of her to you is why I believe my wife should be entitled to diplomatic protection — rather than consular assistance, as she has now.”
More follows...